The company I work for also sells mobile phones, so we're constantly getting political correctness propaganda about telling everybody we know not to text while driving. You know why I don't text while driving? BAD USER INTERFACES! I have an older HTC Android phone, and the text application font is too %%%ing small to read (much less type) unless I have my reading glasses on, and if I do that I can't see past the dashboard. Can't change the font. The thumb-and-finger-embiggen gesture doesn't work with

What I really need is a decent totally hands-free text-to-speech and speech-to text texting system.

That would be awesome. Then you could say something and it would translate it to text, send it to the other recipient in another car, where it would be translated from text to speech and they could hear it. Why, it would be just like making a phone call, except it would take 10 times longer to get information across and you would lose all sense of inflection and emotion.

I believe the fundamental difference (in this context) between a phone call and text messages is not the input medium (voice/text) but the fact that text messaging is asynchronous. So, what the GP is proposing is a system to communicate by sending/receiving "voice mails" of sorts (without hearing the annoying recorded greeting every time I would hope). One for each message. One of the things that make SMS messages so attractive is not the fact that it's a written message but the fact that I can send it and not worry about an immediate response. And as a receiver of a message, I know I can read it when I want, and even chose to avoid response.

I'm not aware of a system that does what the GP says (althought it shouldn't be too hard) and it seems it could be a nice addition to text messages. I could send the spoken message, but don't need to hear the answer until later.

Agreed. Here in Alberta, Canada, we just passed a "Distracted Driver" law last year. There are heavy fines for anyone caught using their cellphone (or other device) while behind the wheel, grooming, or eating anything that would be considered a "meal" and not a "snack".

Since it is already banned in cars for drivers here, it led me to vote "What's wrong with texting?", because I think the other options are just silly attempts at oppression of freedom.

Agreed. Here in Alberta, Canada, we just passed a "Distracted Driver" law last year. There are heavy fines for anyone caught using their cellphone (or other device) while behind the wheel, grooming, or eating anything that would be considered a "meal" and not a "snack".

Since it is already banned in cars for drivers here, it led me to vote "What's wrong with texting?", because I think the other options are just silly attempts at oppression of freedom.

I went with the (amazingly unpopular) choice of "public sidewalks" -- as people often put both themselves and others into harm's way, or just walk along slowly, completely oblivious to how they're affecting sidewalk traffic. If people pulled off to the side of the sidewalk to text, I wouldn't have a problem.

As for all the other options, they're more a social issue than a safety issue (assuming it's not the driver of the car texting). Actually, I'd suggest that in the case of the car, having the non-driver

I went with the (amazingly unpopular) choice of "public sidewalks" -- as people often put both themselves and others into harm's way, or just walk along slowly, completely oblivious to how they're affecting sidewalk traffic. If people pulled off to the side of the sidewalk to text, I wouldn't have a problem.

So then what about tourists who walk down the sidewalk slowly, taking in the sights? Should we ban them, too? And if you're banning things that are inconsiderate, I'd like to humbly suggest one of the most inconsiderate acts possible: banning others from doing things the banner doesn't approve of.

Indeed... and just like the one about cars that should have been about impaired drivers, the one about sidewalks should actually be about impaired pedestrians at intersections. NYC already has laws in place about this, due to the number of traffic accidents caused by walking texters there.

Really: we don't need to ban activities; we need to have enforced consequences for doing dangerous combinations of things.

Or, we can go the German route, and just have a bunch of red tape associated with acquiring the rig

I went with the (amazingly unpopular) choice of "public sidewalks" -- as people often put both themselves and others into harm's way, or just walk along slowly, completely oblivious to how they're affecting sidewalk traffic. If people pulled off to the side of the sidewalk to text, I wouldn't have a problem.

So then what about tourists who walk down the sidewalk slowly, taking in the sights? Should we ban them, too? And if you're banning things that are inconsiderate, I'd like to humbly suggest one of the most inconsiderate acts possible: banning others from doing things the banner doesn't approve of.

The difference being, by "taking in the sights" the tourists are, obviously, paying attention to the world around them, unlike those with their heads stuffed in a cell phone screen.

"So then what about tourists who walk down the sidewalk slowly, taking in the sights?"

Oh come on now. Have you tried walking lately? People are like zombies now. Checkout lines, stair ways, crossing the street - everyone has their face glued to their handheld device. These people are simply not aware of their surroundings. I have had people stop in front of me while climbing stairs! just stopped dead, zombied, texting. Then they get mad at me for not walking around them! the nerve!

Its a brave new world out there! take the transit some time and see the absolute zoning out and inconsideration that seems to be the rule and not the exception. Sure they will most likely get hit by a bus eventually, but who wants to wait for that! It wouldn't be such a problem, except that everyone is doing it!!

And whats with picking up your phone while bagging groceries! Just fucking wait till you leave the store! god damn it!!! I guarantee there is nothing that can't wait 5 fucking minutes!!! The sad thing is that its not only teenagers and youngins doing it. Yesterday a women of about 60 held up the entire line bagging one item at a time because she had her hand full talking on the damn phone!!! These people should know better, but its like you put a phone in their hand and they become a completely different person. They are like little TV's the way people tune out the world.

This is why I applaud the stores that have put up signs saying "no cell phones". If you're on the phone, they won't serve you. Subway seems to have an unwritten exception to this, though. They have signs saying not to use your cell phone while being waited on, but they allow people to be on the phone to order sandwiches for other people. This really annoys me. I think I'm second in line, but it turns out I'm 10th in line behind a bunch of people who were too lazy to go to the store but still extremely particular about what they want on their sandwich.

Agreed. Here in Alberta, Canada, we just passed a "Distracted Driver" law last year. There are heavy fines for anyone caught using their cellphone (or other device) while behind the wheel, grooming, or eating anything that would be considered a "meal" and not a "snack".

Since it is already banned in cars for drivers here, it led me to vote "What's wrong with texting?", because I think the other options are just silly attempts at oppression of freedom.

I went with the (amazingly unpopular) choice of "public sidewalks" -- as people often put both themselves and others into harm's way, or just walk along slowly, completely oblivious to how they're affecting sidewalk traffic. If people pulled off to the side of the sidewalk to text, I wouldn't have a problem.

As for all the other options, they're more a social issue than a safety issue (assuming it's not the driver of the car texting). Actually, I'd suggest that in the case of the car, having the non-drivers texting is probably safer than having them talking or listening to music.

I'm not so bothered about people texting while walking. If you are texting while driving you can easily hurt a lot of other people. If you are texting while walking and step out in front of a moving car then the problem has probably taken care of itself. Someone might have some panel damage and will need to do a bit of scrubbing to get your brains off their windshield but at least some comfort can be taken in the fact that you won't do it again.

As for the nuisance factor, people texting while walking doesn't contribute significantly to my annoyance while out for a walk in town.

Laws like these tend to be overly broad. What if someone uses the mobile phone for driving directions like if it was a dedicated GPS navigator?Or has it display alerts from the car through an OBD II bluetooth dongle?Or calls to report a crash on a no-stop highway?

Without actually charging the person and getting a court order for SMS/MMS logs, I don't see how a cop can be burdened by determining what the actual use was.

Stop people when they drive badly. That should be enough.

As for TXTing, if I had to ban it in one situation, it would be whenever facing another human being.Oh, and in movie theatres. I want it to be dark, not cell phones blinking on and off all over the place.

Restaurants? Ban children from restaurants intended for grown-ups first. If they don't have child seats and crayons for your spawn, it's a strong hint that noisy smelly tykes disrupting the dining for others isn't welcome.Someone might take a picture and MMS it to a Bad Parents wall, which would redeem texting in restaurants...

So - dedicated GPS navigator? Mount it on the dashboard and you're fine. Display alerts from the car? Again, mount the phone, don't hold it in your hand, and no problem. Want to talk on the phone? Use a headset, or those fancy through-the-car speakerphone connections, and you're fine.

Calling to report a crash on a no-stop highway? Unless you've got a hands-free method of doing so, this is arguably dangerous enough that you're going to cause more accidents, so it is not permitted. If you care that much, take the next exit and then call in the crash.

Basically, if a cop sees you holding your phone up to your head and talking, or holding it in front of you and fiddling with it, then that's distracted driving. It doesn't matter if you're checking your voicemail or talking to someone. It doesn't matter if you're texting or playing Bejeweled. It's something that you shouldn't do while in control of an automobile, so it is against the law, and will garner you a $172 fine in Alberta.

It was easy to tell the girl that hit my car was texting her boyfriend as the EMTs pulled her unconscious out of the car and later saw the half written text message on her phone that was on the floorboard of the car covered in blood.

Agreed. Here in Alberta, Canada, we just passed a "Distracted Driver" law last year. There are heavy fines for anyone caught using their cellphone (or other device) while behind the wheel, grooming, or eating anything that would be considered a "meal" and not a "snack".

Well, then I suppose I could have soup while driving in Alberta. It's not a meal, after all.

I concur. Even if the "driver" is texting, there are times that are ok, and times that are not. That is why there are laws are about "distracted driving" and "impaired driving." Banning texting is too meddlesome, and the problem is covered in other, just as enforceable laws.

There is no situation where texting on your phone is acceptable when you are at the helm of a fast moving lethal weapon which requires 100% concentration to operate safely. Only when you are stationary in a safe location should you ever use your phone while driving.

There is no situation where texting on your phone is acceptable when you are at the helm of a fast moving lethal weapon which requires 100% concentration to operate safely.

Yes, but what about cars?If cars required 100% concentration, there would be very few drivers on the road. Fewer accidents too, but we seem to accept a certain amounts of accidents in order to let most people drive, even when they don't always pay as much attention as we want them to. It's a weigh-off, and things aren't either black or white.

Human factors engineer working crew systems for aircraft. You don't pay attention nearly as much as you think you do. That 1% is much closer to 40-50%. The real problem is how long you're distracted at a time, not what fraction of the time you're distracted.

Even when you're not concentrating (and nobody concentrates 100% on driving all the time, it's near impossible for normal people, i.e. non F1 drivers) - your eyes are still pointed at the road, hands are on the wheel, and your ears are free. While we might not be giving driving our full attention, if something DOES trip our 'oh shiit!' reaction - and we're pretty good at that - we can rapidly spin back up to full alert, including a healthy dose of adrenaline; not always fast enough, especially if we're speeding (because speed limits are based in part upon human reaction times) but it gives us a reasonable chance of reacting to events.

If your eyes aren't on the road for several seconds at a time or even longer, you may well miss one of those cues until well, it's too late to react in time. If your eyes are spending more time than a quick flick - aka the mirror-scan timescale - not looking where you're going, then you're going to be much more likely to have a crash. Whether you're texting, screwing with changing the MP3 player with your eyes off the road, poking at the GPS, yelling over your shoulder at the kids in the back, it's distracted driving and you're more dangerous to yourself and everyone else around you.

It's called political pandering. The politicians are making noise, and doing stuff that makes him/her appealing to the voters. "Look, I voted for something that would protect you." It doesn't matter that there are existing laws in place for exactly that.

Distracted driving covers *anything* that would distract the driver. Conversing with the passenger; reading a book; reading a map; messing with the radio. And as relevant to this conversation, fucking with their cell phone. It doesn't matter if they were texting, reading email, watching a movie, or trying to adjust their streaming audio.

Say someone was tuning in streaming audio, and got the ticket for texting. It would be thrown out if they could prove they weren't texting. Regardless if it's still illegal, the charge is what they have to prove, not unrelated crimes.

Even "distracted driving" and "impaired driving" fall under "careless driving". If you were charged with impaired driving, and you (or your attorney) was able to prove you were not impaired, the the prosecution would lose in court.

Careless driving is easiest to prove. I was in an accident a few weeks ago. I was stopped at a light, and was rear ended. Regardless of what the other driver was doing, she hit me, she was driving in a careless manner. The citation was appropriate. I'm confident that she wasn't texting. She was 60-something, and couldn't figure out how to dial 911.:)

Banning texting in cars makes no sense if the "texter" is not the "driver".

Wasn't that kinda implied in the option? Writing it as: "I'd start with cars, specifically with the driver of the cars in question, but not necessarily the passengers riding in, but not controlling, the aforementioned cars," seems a little awkward, even if it is for the sake of making the option less potentially ambiguous?

I find it incredibly hard to believe that people actually text while driving. It's so fucking stupid I can't even visualize it, my mind refuses to go there. Why in hell do you need a law for something that anybody with an IQ above single digit level would know is wrong? That's like making a law not to throw your child out the window of a 50 story building or not to disconnect the gas line to the stove and start striking matches. It should allready be covered by something called "Reckless Endangerment."

That's my point. Something as obviously crazy and dangerous as texting while driving is illegal under existing laws. You don't have to specify every single possible way you can recklessly endanger people just as you don't have to specify every possible way you can murder people.

That's my point. Something as obviously crazy and dangerous as texting while driving is illegal under existing laws. You don't have to specify every single possible way you can recklessly endanger people just as you don't have to specify every possible way you can murder people.

Adding the specifics though prevents the defence that the user didn't know/think that it was "crazy and dangerous". If we could leave it up to people to follow the rule "don't do dangerous things" that would be the only road law we needed.

Banning texting in cars makes no sense if the "texter" is not the "driver".

You should write to your local congressperson (or whoever makes laws in your country) and alert them to this, just in case they make such a law without taking your point into account. Also point out that they shouldn't ban you from texting in a car if it's parked. And to make sure that "cars" includes trucks, SUV's, etc. And that it's still texting if you are wearing a hat. And that the law applies to people over the age of 75 too. And make sure those little car rides you find in shopping centres are excluded from such laws. And they need to clarify the situation where you are outside the car but leaning on it while you are texting.

Banning texting in cars makes no sense if the "texter" or the textee is not the "driver".

I think it should be worded as 'driving while texting' being banned, not the other way around. Its the driving part (while distracted) that should be illegal, and it should be in the legislation that deals with driving, just as DUI and DWI are treated.

The use of a phone 'hands free' to answer a call should be allowed. (And to those people who say that that is also a distraction, I say that we would have to ban passenge

Except the frigging theaters have started to encourage it. At least they did the last time I was there they had text the answer to this quiz to when a prize. Sure afterwards they tell you to shut your phone off for the movie but the problem is once you've encouraged people to make use of a device there is always one more quick thing they want to do and the next thing you know it they are chatting with 3 people at a time texting back and forth for the whole movie.

A little late to the party to be asking this question. Many places have already made it illegal to text and drive with the penalties equivalent to reckless driving. A few higher-Ed and most K-12 ban texting or just having a phone out and not on vibrate in the classroom. There's nothing wrong with text messaging. It's not that you do it, it's where and when that makes it sometimes bad. It's the public's lack of common sense I would like to see addressed rather than the by products thereof.

I didn't vote to ban texting in cars because that statement is too broad. That unfortunately covers passengers and that is just idiotic. It also covers while the car is stopped and turned off. If I want to text someone while I am driving, I will hand my phone over to the passenger and have them do it for me, or wait until I am stopped at a red light or in a parking lot. (If the light changes before I am finished sending my text, I place the phone on the passenger seat until I am stopped again before finishing.) Now if the choice was to ban drivers from texting while the car is in motion, then I would choose that option.

so you are the person who is texting at busy intersections, completely missing the change of the lights meaning only two cars get through.Yesterday I saw an ambulance struggling to get around someone who was obviously texting in traffic.For shame

I am VERY conscience of the light and have NEVER delayed moving once the light changes. Most of the typing is done while I'm watching the light and I only need to glance down to make sure I haven't made any laughable mistakes that may end up on some webpage of texting errors.

We already have a text ban while driving where I live. But if I could, I'd ban texting in theaters. People who do it often don't silence their phones. Nothing like hearing BING! randomly in a film, and then having a bright screen light up. Often, texters also laugh, snicker, and talk to themselves without being aware of it. I don't mind it many other places, but a theater isn't the right place for that kind of behavior.

The US is supposed to be a free country and mostly we still are, but recently there's been a big trend towards overcriminalization [overcriminalized.com].

No offense to the person who wrote the quiz, but the mind-set is troubling. Honestly, why would we think about banning texting anywhere? Making something illegal is a big deal, we are removing liberties from everybody.

Unless you're committed enough to freedom that you're willing to oppose laws that ban things that you think are stupid, you're not committed enough to stay free. I think it's stupid to text while driving and I won't do it, but I oppose efforts to ban it legislatively.

For those who take refuge behind the safety argument (because there is a valid argument to be made for safety): If you are also opposed to other things that research shows are similarly unsafe, like any form of talking while driving, congratulations, you really are in it for safety. Otherwise, you need to examine your motivations.

Personally I think that basically all victimless crimes should be decriminalized....With the exception only for things that are irresponsible in such a way to create a decent possibility of being a hazard to other people and/or their property. See my comment below yours ETC

Slashdotters are quick to complain that our liberties that are becoming fewer and fewer, but we don't hesitate to push legislation when the activity in question bothers us.

I would attest that there are far more dangerous activities one could commit that are freedoms we wouldn't consider revoking. People are negligent and make poor choices, but removing freedoms that some abuse from the entire population is a knee jerk over correction that gives far too much power to authorities.

Why does it imply that I would want bans in the rest of the places when I pick cars? Is this some kind of reverse psychology slippery slope?

I'd ban it in cars, and ONLY cars. And naturally only for the driver.

And surely it's already "banned" in classrooms? Unless you want to press criminal charges against children who happen to have a social life and *GASP* an inability to not pay attention every day in a classroom.

...before removing a freedom from the American people. I recognize that texting while driving can be very dangerous, but it is so important to question our urge to legislate things when it may not be necessary.

If we are concerned that texting is dangerous and should be banned, shouldn't we make it illegal to eat while driving? Should we ban drive-thru food? What about making it illegal for children in the backseat to distract the driver? Where do you stop? Statistically speaking, I'm convinced that there are far more dangerous activities than texting while driving - where do we stop legislating freedoms to insulate Americans from harming themselves out of negligence?

Removing a liberty from the American public should not be done without very serious consideration of the matter. There are very few degrees of separation between a nation that is concerned about the safety of their people to a police state.

If we are concerned that texting is dangerous and should be banned, shouldn't we make it illegal to eat while driving?... Statistically speaking, I'm convinced that there are far more dangerous activities than texting while driving - where do we stop legislating freedoms to insulate Americans from harming themselves out of negligence?

If it were just harming themselves, I wouldn't care. I'm fully behind New Hampshire's stance on seatbelt laws: If you're an adult, and don't buckle up, and get yourself killed because you go flying through your windshield in a wreck, that's your business.

The problem is when somebody is texting while driving, goes through a red light that they never even saw, and crushes a couple of 8-year-olds in the crosswalk. That's the reason to ban it: It kills thousands of completely innocent people annually who just h

In fact, decriminalize everything that simply might cause someone to drive dangerously, and just criminalize driving dangerously for any reason. Anyone who would get caught by the former but not the latter is by definition an innocent caught in an overly broad law; everyone actually endangering anyone would be caught by the latter.

I'm pretty sure this is already the case, as any state that wants to can (and probably should) implement laws against "Reckless Driving" and such. It's not as if the police would watch you drive by while texting (crashing into another vehicle because of distraction, if necessary) and throw up their hands saying "There's not a damn thing we can charge him with!". The only reason to legislate a ban on texting specifically would be to give the justice system one more law to throw at drivers who violated it.

Yeah, my point was that laws against reckless driving should be enough to cover everything we should be covering already, and other laws outlawing specific things that may cause reckless driving only add people who did those things but didn't drive recklessly, i.e. innocent people, to the list of people punished. So such things should be decriminalized per se, and to the extent that they cause reckless driving, they will still be punished under reckless driving laws.

If only it was possible to have some sort of voice recognition system in your phone that would listen to what you say out loud and convert that to a text message. Then the recipient's phone could have a system that would convert the text back to audio and play it into an ear piece...

Driving while texting is already illegal, due to C&I and Reckless driving laws. No ban needed, just appropriate punishment for those who violate the rights of others by texting while driving... maybe similar to drunk driving sentences.

Texting in a restaurant/movie theater/what have you... Well, it's definitely rude, but not something that "needs a law." Rather, we, as a society, need to learn to treat rude assholes that jabber away like shit, pointing out their dickheaded-ness, and they will usually blush and self-correct.

Classrooms - wait, don't most teachers already forbid students from using cell phones in class? How about this, instead of a law, why don't we just reach a consensus that it's perfectly OK for a teacher to fail a student for the day if he violates the classroom rules? Or is that not P.C. enough?

Public sidewalks... Hmm, that is an interesting one. On the one hand, it could be argued that texting in public is not harmful to others, or violate of their rights... on the other hand, there's no shortage of stories regarding, well, stupid people getting themselves killed by paying more attention to their phones than the real world, so much that there has been talk of creating a "warning app" that would alert these morons when they're about to step into traffic.

Personally, I think if you're so brainless as to walk in front of a city bus unless the device you're obsessing over tells you not to... you need to walk in front of that bus. For the good of the species.

For the vote, I went with "Everywhere;" partially in an ironic display of my belief that the bans are bullshit (see above), but also because, in my 30 years, I've yet to send or receive a text message of any importance.

Not sure why restaurants is so low. It's relatively infuriating when you sit down at a restaurant and immediately everyone gets out their phones and looks down. Why the fuck am I eating "with" them if they're going to spend all their time talking to other people outside the restaurant?

Not sure why restaurants is so low. It's relatively infuriating when you sit down at a restaurant and immediately everyone gets out their phones and looks down. Why the fuck am I eating "with" them if they're going to spend all their time talking to other people outside the restaurant?

That doesn't sound like a problem with texting in restaurants so much as a problem with your choice of friends.

I'm an old married fellow, so it's no longer an immediate concern for me (my beloved wife has little use for texting). Still, when I walk about and see young couples who should be grossing us all out with their lovey dovey public displays of affection, and instead they're paying attention to 3" LCD screens, I feel that yet a little more poetry has left the world.

You don't kill people SMSing in a classroom, theatre or restaurant. I currently have two broken wrists, thanks to a stupid 17 year old who slammed into my car on Monday of last week, while sending a text. My car, which was less than 2 months old, is written off and he himself is incredibly lucky to be alive. He drove directly in front of my car, so I hit him perpendicular at speed, without even having time to break. I hit his rear door so hard his back seats were buckled. If I'd hit his front door (where he was sitting), and this was milliseconds from being the case, he would be dead, 100% for sure. And all this because the idiot was too busy sending a text to look at the road and he simply pulled out directly in front of me.

So yes, ban them in cars (and incidentally, they are banned for the driver in cars here in Australia). He's actually going to be charged, because he not only was txting while driving, but he also pulled in front of my by trying to turn right, over a double white line (illegal in Australia), from the left lane (also illegal). He'd had his license less than 2 weeks so he will now lose it for 3 months and he can forget about getting insurance for the next decade because both cars (mine and his dad's), written off, had a collective value of well over $120k.

You are bypassing the issue by applying a specific definition to "texting".

The part of texting that is dangerous is obviously the part where you are looking at the phone and pushing buttons, not the part where the phone itself actually sends the message.

Of course, this brings forth the question about other tasks that involve looking at the phone and pushing buttons, which gets to the heart of the issue: doing anything that excessively distracts the driver's attention from the task of driving is a bad idea;

Of course, this brings forth the question about other tasks that involve looking at the phone and pushing buttons, which gets to the heart of the issue: doing anything that excessively distracts the driver's attention from the task of driving is a bad idea; should such tasks be banned?

In my opinion, yes. And that includes my friend who talks non-stop, looking at the passenger more than she looks at the road, while waving at least one hand and sometimes both. She's a wonderful person, but needs a month in jail to learn how dangerous she really is.

I felt morally obligated to pick "Cars" since it will actually save lives.

I'm not 100% sure about that. From what I can tell, those who text while driving also tend to slow down, and drive erratic enough that others slow down too.In which case it probably increases the number of accidents quite a bit, but might also reduce the number of fatalities.

Is there any statistics on fatalities where texting was a contributing factor? I.e. not just accidents?

Then there's the question of how good a driver someone stupid enough to text while driving is. Will they become safe and alert dri

As I understand it [wikipedia.org], using your cell phone while driving is not completely outlawed in the US. Some states are clearly less interested in the safety of their drivers than others.

In the long run, I'm sure evolution selects for dangerous behavior. If it were up to me, speed limits should be abolished - especially in school areas - and airbags should be replaced with switchblades. Sure, innocents would die too, but the ratio of idiots to innocents dying in traffic accidents would go up, and not being idiot drivers or pedestrians would be selected for.

Texting while walking down a public sidewalk is certainly a good way to injure someone else.

I was riding home one evening a few months ago, and this girl was texting or playing a game or whatever on her phone, walked right into the street right in front of me, and I would have taken her and myself out in a bad way had I not been paying attention and swerved to miss her at the last second.

Today's text-while-driving folly was the SUV in front of me at a multi-lane left turn signal who was texting while feeding 2 kids junk food. She missed the light turning green and when I honked she shot me the bird then ran the (now red) light, almost wiping out 2 other cars. So, yes, I'd like to ban texting from behind the wheel or at least make it an audio transaction.

Seems like some auto maker could really make a name for themselves by offering voice-to-text-to-voice Bluetooth SMS. It's not like it's rocket science, after all. The only hard part would be how to do smileys.

Why does it have to be text? Are people so neurotic these days about talking to another human being? Hands free voice to voice works fine in cars, thank you very much. There's no reason for text to come into it.

Telstra in Melbourne, Australia did that for a while with a hilarious fuckup when they launched a new mobile phone network a few years back and had nowhere near enough capacity for the service they sold. Phones would drop out with walking speed movement.